Mosier you insensitive clueless jackass

I don’t see anybody suggesting that do you?

They’re not.

And as far as deadbeats go, non-custodial mothers were (as of the 1990s) more likely to default either partially or totally on child support than non-custodial fathers are, even though they were less likely to be ordered to pay it. The ordered amount of support is typically less for a non-custodial mother as a percentage of income than for a non-custodial father.

The family courts are heavily biased in favor of women.

47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default.
79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award, but only 29.9% of custodial fathers do.

Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

For noncustodial mothers, the order amount represents 15.2 percent of their monthly income (compared to 19 percent for noncustodial fathers).

Wow! Those are significant differences. I imagine there are other factors as well.

I had a friend who left her husband and he retained physical custody of the kids. Even though she agreed to give up her share of the home they owned, and they had agreed to no child support from her because she had no skills for labor and he had a good paying job, the judge wouldn’t allow this arrangement and ordered her to pay child support. The exception to the rule evidently.

There are exceptions. But they are exceptions.

Catsix, your cite is talking about deviations from the standard. These are deviations made for specific circumstances. Your cite speficically notes that women are usually paying a lower percent due to amount of income…

Since this is study of Washington state you are quoting, my husband used to work for support enforcement, and we still have friends that do this work for a living, I can assure you that women are not automatically given a break on their portion of support.

Our local division of Child Support (DCS) has the highest rate of non-paying non-custodial parents (NCPs). This is because most of this area is filled with migrant or under-employed people. Many of the local cases are minimum orders, which is $25 a month. Locally there are tons of female NCPs and they are expected to pay their fair share. The fact that some don’t just proves that people are assholes regardless of their naughty bits.

If a kid is in foster care or any third party is guardian, both parents are chased for support. The laws are not written to provide women with an out for their support obligations and the difference in the amount a women will pay is usually because women, as a whole, make less money than men.

I completely agree with Mosier on all counts; I’ve never understood the child support system, and always though that it represented the worst aspects of purely legalistic thinking.

Of the people involved, Moms Dads and the kids, who do you think is the least guilty of being selfish and irresponsible. Of the three, who should our legal system consider most in need of protection and support? As a community who should we look out for first and insure their welfare?

I’m all for fixing problems and trying to be fair but the system will never be perfect and if men and women who bring children into this world accepted that responsibility voluntarily no court system would ever have to chase them down. They don’t and so we have a system in place whose first priority is to provide for the support and welfare of minors because they can’t provide for themselves. The courts are forced to decide who is responsible to support this minor. What has seemed reasonable so far is that the two biological parents share that responsibility. Do you have a better suggestion?

Really? Perhaps you’d tell me what phrase, other than “Boo fucking hoo”, you do use when you’re minimizing situations then.

I don’t know about second guessing the mother’s motives, the first guess looks pretty damn obvious to me. Or maybe you think that just purely by coincidence she happened to think that nine years after his daughter’s birth was a good time for him to get involved in the kid’s life, right about the time she completely independently learned she could shake him down for fifty large?

As to choices, it’s very large of you not to make any harsh judgment calls about his motives. :rolleyes: Yeah, I guess he had a completely free choice not complicated one little bit by the fact that the birthgiver chose to keep him ignorant of the facts until he could choose between fucking up the kid’s life and that of his existing dependents, or guilting himself by never seeing the daughter he was now forced to shell out for. As to blaming, I guess if I nail your nutsack to the table and toss you a knife and a loaded gun as I leave, it’s entirely your choice whether you fry, castrate yourself or eat a .45 slug, and you can’t blame me for that one, huh?

Are you flaming me for what you think I’m suggesting, and not actually bothering to find out what the suggestion is? That’s kinda lazy.

Again, from the story as stated, an undertaking to facilitate the relationship is (a) of no use to him this far down the line and (b) no measure of compensation for the wrongs he’s suffered. So how about we compromise: She gets to ding him for the $50k plus future support, and he gets to file a counterclaim for damages for alienation of his natural daughter’s affections? Too bad the courts would never enforce the second part.

You don’t need to lecture me as to responsibilities, as being a father of two who makes damn sure his sons want for nothing. Still, Kreskin, when you’re through divining what I do or don’t think, perhaps we can consider some numbers. He’s to find $50k up front and, let’s say, is to cough up a similar sum for the next nine years to boot. Now I don’t know what kind of terms the courts are likely to afford him, whether he gets time to pay or has to take out a large loan or whatever. Let’s say he has a five-year loan to service - maybe $11k a year, we can argue percentage points about interest rates if you want. Tack on about another $5k a year to meet his ongoing obligations from age 9 - 18. So for the next five years he has to find another $16k a year out of taxed income. Maybe he’s got as much as $5k a year slack in his annual budget - let’s call it $6k. That leaves him $10k a year after tax - shall we say a grand a month before tax? Now you tell me what kind of a second job you can find and how much it pays per hour, divide A into B and tell me why the picture I paint is such an unrealistic one.

And for all of this, remember, he gets fuck. all. in return. I doubt he even has the right to demand to see the pictures of the kid’s first Christmas or the video of the first time she walked; he most certainly doesn’t get to share in the memories - because the mother decided he didn’t deserve to. Are you still going “boo fucking hoo”?

And the good Lord also blesses you.

Oh, right. Well maybe I just noticed that as long as you were talking about the independent adult woman whose freely made choices contributed to at least 50% of the situation - at least 50%, because the choices as to whether to conceive, whether to continue the pregnancy and whether to keep the child were 100% hers - and who continues to make second-rate choices despite the lessons of the first time… as long as you were talking about that, it was all hand-wringing and why-oh-whying in MPSIMS, but let someone disagree with you and suddenly it’s effing and blinding in the Pit.

I try not to do that and I can understand how you might have read it that way but I pointed out twice now that I followed that comment with an acknowledgment that it was a hard situation.

Neither you or I know how this all went down or what her motive and thought process was so I don’t assume the worst or the best without more information.
Evidently she and her new man were willing to adopt and take responsibility for the child and the lawyer they consulted advised them that she had a legal right to support from the biological father. We don’t know their financial status compared to his do we? We can be fairly sure that the money was calculated based on his income. Would it make a difference to you if he was making 60 to 70 grand a year and they were getting by on 30 or 40 with kids.
I’m not interested in second guessing the details. My point was and is that even as difficult as this situation is he still has a moral obligation to help support his child.

Do I think she should have told him the truth when she found out she was pregnant? Yes. That doesn’t mean her motives were malicious or vindictive. I think the worse mistake would be if she decided to go after the money but still doesn’t want to tell his child about him out of some misguided feeling of protecting the child. IMO it holds much more potential harm for the child to find out later rather than sooner. Still, he had the right to insist on having contact no matter how complicated it was. He chose not to.
Look maybe she was a total selfish bitch or maybe it was a little more complicated than that. I don’t know. It doesn’t relate to the point I was making.

Wow Thats a totally appropriate comparison. I guess you got me there.

Let’s say she told him about the child nine years ago and he still got a good paying job and had to pay his share of child support based on the differences in their two incomes. How much do you suppose he might have paid in nine years?

I asked you what you’re suggesting rather than assuming it. You’re free to answer me plainly or make snide remarks.

Why wouldn’t they? I’m not sure how that would play out but it occurs to me that even though she’s wrong you’re suggesting they essentially take support away from the child to punish her. Why would you assume that not having a relationship with his newly discovered daughter is of no use to him { or her either for that matter} at this point? That’s pretty presumptuous of you isn’t it?

I also don’t know the limits of back CS allowed in this case. Mt step sons bio dad ignored him for twelve years but the courts allowed his Mom to only pursue five. That means she has to accept the responsibility for the the seven years she couldn’t muster the courage to go after him. I think that’s reasonable.

I’m not tying to read your mind or lecture you. You voluntarily came into this thread to criticize me so perhaps you’ll understand if I defend my position.
I’m assuming the figures the courts arrived at were based on his full time job. It looks like he’s a single guy making great money. What does that mean to you?
I didn’t suggest he could get a job 2nd job to pay all of his CS debt. I suggested that any responsible adult can find a 2nd job to help deal with a financial burden. He’s no exception.

Yes, I already said thats hard. 2nd sentence remember? If he truly wanted to be a part of his child’s life he could be, lost time and memories notwithstanding.

If you can’t take the heat stay out of the pit. Sometimes when I’m pissed I vent. No excuses offered.

The choice to conceive was 100% hers?
My daughter is responsible for her decisions and their consequences She got pregnant and had a child but not alone. The father is also responsible and should behave so. Yes, there’s a major difference between a man who knowingly avoids his CS obligations and one who never knew and was blindsided later. Neither gets a pass on the obligation though.
I fail to see how you’re relating the two incidents.

Yes she’s made bad choices and as her Dad I’m concerned and would like to find a way to help, but I won’t help her avoid responsibility.

My objection and reaction to Mosier was because he was off subject for one. The thread wasn’t about the court system. It appeared to me he had ignored the subject to vent his own pet theories. Also because he’s just plain wrong and expressed it in a way that pissed me off. I brought it to the pit because it’s the appropriate forum for what I was thinking. I vented and I’m over it, but I still think he’s dead wrong.

“The majority (9.9 million [of 11.5 million]) of custodial parents were women . . .”

Also from that page, custodial women receive more money than custodial men and non-custodial men are more likely to pay child support than non-custodial women (76% vs. 63%). Why aren’t you upset about the deadbeat mothers? Custody is more often awarded to women than men, and more women than men receive child support; there’s no debate on this point.

It’s also true that more single mothers live in poverty than custodial men. But receiving the full amount of child support due them doesn’t often change the situation much. Not surprisingly, both men and women in lower income brackets are less likely to receive money from the non-custodial parent. It’s pretty likely that people most often get together with someone of similar social class, and thus similar income levels. It’s hard to find any extra when you don’t have much to begin with.

I have met two men who had blue-collar jobs but quit them because they couldn’t support themselves on the wages they actually got to take home. It was in their best interest to be on welfare or unemployment rather than work. Put another way, child support and alimony were disincentives to work.

One guy was making about $10 an hour (this was over 10 years ago) and got to keep less than $5 of that after taxes, alimony, and child support were taken out. Minimum wage at the time was $5.25. He had debts and other financial obligations (car, 2 bedroom apartment with a lease, credit card payments) from before the separation that impacted his lifestyle, but debts are not shared even when they are incurred for the benefit of both people in a relationship.

His two children were living with their mother and her new boyfriend. They did not get married specifically so that she could continue to receive alimony in addition to child support. She had a job that made more before support and alimony than he did, as did the boyfriend. Obviously, he felt that this was a very unfair situation. He ended up declaring bankruptcy rather than either a) starve and be homeless or b) simply default on his debts.

He couldn’t afford the apartment anymore, couldn’t scrape up enough money to get a decent place to live on on what he was now getting from his job, and rather than be completely screwed simply didn’t go to work anymore. He ended up having to live with his mother for a while. I don’t know what hoops he jumped through to get it, but he was able to get some public aid support. If he ever tried to get a job without some subterfuge his wages would be garnished again, and he’d be in even worse shape because they’d go after back child support and alimony. Nice life for him, eh?

Similar story for the other guy, a friend’s dad. He was a mechanic, had most of his wages taken away for child support and alimony even though his wife made about 50% more than he did at the time. (He received no palimony, by the way, despite the income discrepancy.) At first, he took up a side job to try and make enough to live, but that bumped him up into a higher bracket for support, which pretty much negated the extra income.

So here he was, working about 60 hours or more a week for less than he used to make when he only had one job, she was living a lifestyle that he couldn’t have afforded even if he kept all his money, and he wondered what he was working for. His ex-wife was a total bitch and didn’t even allow him to see his son most of the time, inventing excuses and time conflicts all the time. His son wanted to visit more, but wasn’t allowed to. Whether he paid support or not, his son would have about the same standard of living, but he was lucky to have enough money to live.

It’s not surprising that he mostly quit paying. He quit the main job, did odd jobs and mechanic work under the table to make ends meet, while paying support from the official income on his formerly side job. He didn’t abdicate all responsibility, but he did try to get things to a point where he felt that he could pay something without being destitute. He also got smart and got permission to put the money into trust for his son, so that the money was tracked when it was spent. She had to spend it on necessities and couldn’t treat it as a “fun” fund. Not that it mattered in any practical way, but it was a moral victory from his point of view.

Was it in their children’s best interests that they quit and went on welfare and avoided paying as much child support?

You should have told him to talk to a lawyer. You cannot simply live with someone and not get married to avoid losing alimony. That’s true in Virginia at least, and I would be very surprised if it isn’t true elsewhere.

Yeah, it was in their best interest not to work – it sure as hell wasn’t in their kids’.

Men who are voluntarily underemployed or unemployed to avoid child support obligations are the scum of the earth.

True dat. They should have worked anyway, and eh, if they can’t support themselves on what they take home, they starve. That’s their own fault.

Then they should get another job.

I have done it and I was the custodial parent of our two children and getting child support.

It was not enough to make ends meet so I worked my regular 40 hour week and had a part time job on the weekends.

If I can do it and have the children living with me they sure as hell can do it.


Do you think it’s in the best interest of a child to have his father living in poverty? If it is, doesn’t the father get, at some point, to do what’s best for himself, rather than thinking of the children? If he can’t make rent and violates his lease, where is he going to live? Is it in the children’s best interest to spend every other weekend, plus two holidays a year, sleeping in a bathtub to avoid stray gunfire?

So I take from your statement that you believe it is in the best interest of the child to have their own father or mother willingly not work or work under the table which denies the child support which drives the custodial parent whether it be mother or father to live in poverty so now they and their child live 315 days a year in poverty and sleep in the bathtub to avoid stray gun fire?

And why is that? Did you read the example given?

I did not see any example you gave.

I did see this example:

In this example there is alimony as well which is an entire different discussion.

For the discussion of child support then in this case he should have contacted child support and perhaps a lawyer to request an assessment be done. I am not sure about other states but in Ohio the noncustodial parent does not need a lawyer request an assessment. They do have a limit as to how often you can request one which is every three years.

My ex did just that eleven years ago when he lost his well paying job and he was making much less money at his new job. He contacted child support, had them look over both of our current incomes and the child support was reduced.

It was fair as he was making less money. Of course during the time he was jobless I got nothing at all because he did not file for unemployment but he did send me some coupons off some name brand food. I am still not sure how he thought I could afford name brand food but lets not get off the subject.

I am not saying in every situation or in every state is that simple but it is here. It is also the same procedure to get it raised and it takes about six months for a complete assessment to go through.

Also in the case of unemployment they will take out child support. Of course it is not usually as much as they may normally get but it is something.

I am referring to people that either do not work and mooch off others or find under the table employment so they can avoid paying.

In my experience these deadbeat fathers and mothers are not even thinking of the child. They are so hell bent on making sure their ex gets nothing and it is the child that suffers.

Whether the system is flawed or not the system is in place for the sake of the child and the custodial parent that is raising that child.

I agree that there are people out there they may abuse the system and there are parents that use the child support for other than what it is intended for.

But I feel there are a whole lot more out there that need that child support to feed, cloth and shelter their children.

I think the poverty level of the non-custodial father largely impacts the child to the extent he can contribute to the child’s support. A poorer father is less able to do that effectively. But do I think it’s in the child’s interest to have a poorer father who pays support, in place of a better-off father who doesn’t? Hell yes.

Absolutely not. The children you bring into the world do not have the ability to support themselves; they must look to you for support. In every instance, the needs of the child should be paramount.

If he literally cannot pay his rent, then he needs to ask the court for relief from his obligation. Simply not working to avoid the obligation is NOT an option.

Yes. It compelely is. Hyperbole much? :rolleyes: